AaronBallman wrote: > Well, this is not going to make a noticeable difference in runtime. > https://reviews.llvm.org/D155548 didn't land because there are no > measurements to make where this makes a measurable difference.
Those changes didn't land because no measurements were attempted. Putting up a branch at https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/ would help get those measurements to at least start to see if there's benefit or harm from the changes. > As for my earlier comment, it would also make sense to rename that function > to `computeBitWidth()` or just cache the computed value (we compute it when > parsing anyway to diagnose 0 size, etc. right?). Caching the computed value would make sense, but that's sort of the goal of D155548, right? That's a generalized caching mechanism that should mean when we compute it to diagnose 0 size, we never need to re-compute it again. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66203 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
